getting together and organizing and asking for some base human rights. so they started -- basic human rights. so they started statistically detaining and arresting and harrising people so that former president carter wouldn't have to see, wouldn't have to be bothered with the inconvenience of people actually speaking out and asking for freedom. and asking for democracy. a group of people, mr. speaker, actually went in front of the old capitol building, capitol building, by the way, that doesn't look very dissimilar to this capitol building, where at one time debates on the democratic society used to take place, where people argued and debated in peaceful fashion about their future, about their agreements and disagreements. . a group of people demonstrated in front of that building and basically just to say, we want freedom. we want democracy. we want the ability to speak out

and determine our future. but for that, they were, again, harassed, and for that, they were arrested. one was reportedly beaten by state security rather harshly. several were detained including an activate, president of the cuban youth for democracy movement. another member of that same organization. one of the heroes that i greatly admire is perez and they know him by antunas and he said, quote, this action, this action of just demonstrating is a demand for the freedom of political prisoners and in response, a moral slap in the face for the campaigns undertaken by the regime to divide the opposition. he went on to say, we are true

to our motto, the streets belong to the people. but, you see, unfortunately, in cuba, just standing out, walking together like the ladies in white do and they demonstrate peacefully and walk together as a symbol of just speaking out because their relatives, their husbands and fathers and brothers and sons are in prison, just for doing that, they get savagely beaten by that regime. now, did president carter, while he was there, did he insist on free elections for the cuban people? no did he insist on meeting with and speaking about and talking about those who are suffering in the dungeons of political prisoners?

no, mr. speaker, he did not. and as i mentioned at the beginning, he didn't have it on the agenda to meet anybody except the regime and decided to allow some people to try to meet with him. but, so did he speak out about the regime and speak out about the lack of elections and demand free elections for the enslaved people, an end to the apartheid system, did he demand that that regime turn over, the many fugitives who are hashored? he did nothing of that sort. he spoke of and he complained about the sanctions that this, the united states government has to try to try to the cuban

people and leverage with the cuban people and complained about the attitude and policies of the united states government. but not about the policies of that thug, that dictatorship, 90 miles away. he didn't complain about what that dictatorship does to its own people. did he complain about the mass arrests of those heroes who wanted to speak out and who decided to use that opportunity in front of the capitol building to just ask for freedom? no, he didn't do that, mr. speaker. but he did complain about u.s. policy. but he went a step further. he went on to demand the release in the united states of five

convicted criminals, five people who were convicted in the united states in a country where we have due process, we have all the rights and all the rights that are provided to a defendant. five people who were convicted ofes upon yadge and one convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. former president carter did, did ask that those convicted in a court of law with all the due process that we have in this country for conspiracy to commit murder, he did ask and demand for their release, but did not ask or demand for the release of hundreds and hundreds of political providers who are rotting in prison while he was there. it's a sad day, mr. speaker. it's a sad day, i think for humanity.

i know a lot of people who are listening are not surprised. i recall when the cuban dictator was gravely ill, it was reported that president carter wrote him a nice note hoping he would recover, hoping he would recover and would recover his health. and that now, again, former president carter called him his dear friend. hoping that he would recover. this is a regime who had asked for on multiple occasions for the then soviet union to strike the united states with nuclear weapons, to deliver a first strike on the united states with nuclear weapons. and yet, former president jimmy carter was hoping that he would recover. this is a regime that is a state sponsor of terrorism, 90 miles away from the united states and

yet former president jimmy carter sent him a note that he hoped he would fully recover. this is a regime who our g.i.'s died on grenada, liberating that island, and died at the hands of the troops that the cuban regime had sent there. and yet, former president jimmy carter was hoping in writing that that dictatorship would fully recover. this is a dictatorship that harbors u.s. fugitives and terrorists and on the list of state-sponsored terrorists, and yet former president jimmy carter was hoping that he would fully recover. well, unfortunately, the dictator has somewhat recovered. and what has he been doing? well, more of the same. he still harbors the fugitives

and creates havoc around the hemisphere and continues to oppress his people, torture his people. and we have seen example after example of that with again the last arrests that i just spoke of. mr. speaker, a couple of weeks ago, i spoke -- a group of us here in congress spoke to another one of my heroes, dr. bissette. he is a brilliant cuban physician. he found an organization for human rights in 1997. that was founded to promote the study and defense of human rights and denounce human rights violations inside cuba and wherever else they may take place. for denouncing, mr. speaker, the double standards and discrimination against the cuban people, the discrimination that

the cuban health care system has for the cuban people, he was forbidden from practicing medicine. he is an m.d. he was in prison for three years just for organizing a peaceful pro-democracy protest. he was released in 2002. again, was no longer to practice medicine but released in 2002. what he did was organize seminars on just the universal declaration of human rights. i snicker, because that's something that every day people talk about. my colleague on the other side of the aisle just spent quite a large part of his time talking about the evolution of the constitution and human rights. well, the doctor, when he was released in 2002, he talked about the declaration of human rights. so he was arrested once again in

december of 2002. for attending seminars and organizing some of those seminars. on april 7, the doctor was sentenced in 2002, was sentenced to 25 years in prison. he has been incarcerated for in multiple prisons around the island and has suffered greatly in his incarceration. on november 5, 2007, president bush recognized the doctor by presenting him -- he was not allowed to visit, with the presidential medal of freedom and said quote, he is a champion . despite being per cuted in prison, he continues to advocate for a free cuba in which the rights of all people are respected. i said mr. speaker that a group

of us, chris smith from new jersey, congresswoman laint, chairperson of the international relations committee and i spoke to the doctor by telephone. and we asked him about his health and he has suffered greatly. he is not however given up his efforts. he said i'm recoup rating to continue the struggle for freedom. we asked him about what his opinion was about the united states policy, same policy that former president jimmy carter has now criticized. we said if there are some that if we opened up trade and got rid of the sanctions that freedom would come to the cuban people. he was so emphatic and said no, no, no. tyrants are always looking at ways of getting more revenue and

he stated the only thing that would do and i'm paraphrasing, the only thing that would do is to strengthen the dictatorship. it wouldn't help the cuban people. did former president jimmy carter meet with dr. bissette, the recipient of the medal of freedom? he did not. because he probably would not have liked to have heard what the doctor would had to say. he would not like to hear about the oppression, lack of human rights and dignity that those who suffer in prison have to suffer while former president carter calls the dictator in havana his good friend. there are other incredible heroes on the island, mr. speaker. i mentioned the doctor but i

want to mention antunas. he served almost two decades in prison and received incredible tortures, beatings, multiple beatings while he was there. and yet, when released, his attitude has been what? attitude of great dignity, great courage and standing up and continues to demand elections and freedom. and he also would tell you if he could be speaking here today that we have to stay firm and we have to hold stedfast and show solidarity with the cuban people not with the regime that president carter calls his good friend, not with those that former president carter calls those -- when they are ill hoping to do well, no, we have to hold firm and stand with the cuban people.

mr. speaker, i'm so convinced, so convinced that the cuban people will be free despite those that go out of their way to try to make the regime look good, try to make the regime look like they are this wonderful, charitable regime because they may free a political prisoner as a token gesture. despite that, the cuban people continue to stand firm. their heroes are still there, the mandelas are on the island and speaking out. most of them, many of them have been in prison, many of them have been tortured and beaten, but their spirit remains strong, mr. speaker and continue to speak out. and despite individuals like, unfortunately, former president jimmy carter who looks for every excuse and every opportunity to criticize the policies of the united states and yet refuse to

criticize the savagery, despite that, i'm convinced that the cuban people will be free because of the heroes like antunas and dr. bissette. i am not discouraged by when i see these gestures of solidarity with the dictatorship. i'm not discouraged when people go down to havana and may have a mojito and have a trip to the beach, i'm not discouraged because ultimately the truth wins. the truth of individuals also surfaces. those that sacrifice and work hard and the heroes who, by the way, are the future leaders of a free cuba, those who are in the

dungeons or in and out of the dungeons, they don't give up and they're not discouraged and not quieted and will not be intimidated. mr. speaker, despite this what some would call a slap in the face to the cause of human rights and democracy in cuba, but i will tell you the cause of human rights and human dignity around the planet, despite that, that former president jimmy carter has just attempted to do, i'm not discouraged. on the contrary, i'm as encouraged as ever. i think i might end by reading a letter if i actually have it here. i don't think i have it. i do want to mention, though, that all of our colleagues in the senate, a democrat from new jersey, senator menendez, wrote

a letter to former president jimmy carter where he expressed, and i will be schmidting that for the record, mr. speaker, where he expressed what jimmy carter, what former president jimmy carter should be talking about. he expressed how it was rather incredible that the former president would not demand the freedom of the cuban people and would criticize the policies of the united states and as senator menendez says in that letter, he says, the issue is not what the policy of the united states is with the cuban regime. the issue is the policies of the regime and the oppression of the regime with its own people. and once again, senator menendez, democrat from new jersey, is right on. so, with that, mr. speaker, just want to again say that we do not forget the heroes in the island, we do not forget those who are struggling and working and

speaking out and suffering the consequences for their actions in the island. we do not forget them, we admire them, we support them, we are humbled by their courage, we are humbled by their love for freedom and what they are willing to sacrifice for their freedom and we now -- know that sooner than i think some may believe and clearly sooner thamson some would like, they too will be free -- than some would like, they too will be free, they too will be able to discuss issues in public, they too will be able to make the determination as to the future of their country. so i am encouraged and humbled by their leadership despite sometimes a sadness of what we have to listen to by those who still continue to call fidel castro their good friend. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. do you have a motion to adjourn? mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker. i would now move to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is now on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stand

remarks areident's 45 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you so much. thank you, everybody. [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you so much. thank you, everybody. everybody please have a seat. it is wonderful to be back in georgetown. we have a number of acknowledgments. first of all, i want to thank the president for his outstanding leadership here but also for his hospitality. we also have secretary stephen to come up my energy secretary. where is he? -- were also have secretary

steven chu, my secretary of energy. our transportation secretary. lisa jackson, our epa's administrator. nancy sutlee, our environmental quality director right here. a couple of great members of congress. where is jay? there he is over there. and we have -- he did not bring the weather with him but the mayor of los angeles, california is in the house. [cheers and applause] mayor scott smith of mesa,

arizona is here. [applause] most important, the students of georgetown university are here. [cheers and applause] i want to start with a difficult subject. coaches here and i love the great traditions they have. i turned out it was pretty good. i had georgetown winning in the game in my bracket so we're all hurting here. that is what next year is for. we meet here as a tumultuous time for the world.

in a matter of months, we have seen regimes toppled, we have seen democracy take root, in africa and the middle east. we have witnessed a terrible earthquake, a catastrophic tsunami, a nuclear emergency that has battered one of our strongest allies and closest friends in the world's third largest economy. we have fled an international effort in the bid to prevent a massacre and maintain stability throughout the broader region. as americans, we're heartbroken by the lives that have been lost as a result of these events. the thirsty moved by for freedom in the summit

nations. we're moved by the strength of the perseverance of the japanese people. it is natural to feel anxious about what all of this means for us. one big area of concern has been the cost of security of our energy. the situation in the middle east implicates our energy security. the situation in japan leads us to ask questions about our energy sources. in an economy that relies so heavily on oil, rising prices at the pump affect everybody. workers, farmers, truck drivers, restaurant owners, students who are lucky enough to have a car.

businesses, you see rising prices at the pump hurt their bottom line. families feel the pinch when they filled their tanks. and for americans who are struggling to get by, a hike in gas prices really makes their lives that much harder. it hurts. if you are somebody who works in a relatively low-wage job and you have a commute to work, it takes up a big chunk of your income. you may not be able to buy as many groceries. you may have to cut back on medicine in order to fill the gas tank. this is something that everybody is affected by.

we have been down this road before. it was three years ago that gas prices topped four dollars a gallon. -- $4 a gallon on. i was in the middle of a presidential campaign. working folks remember because it hit a lot of people pretty hard. and because we're at the height of political season, there were you remember that -- you remember that. "drill, baby, drill," you remember that.

there was a lot of human cry, a lot of fulminating and hand- wringing but nothing actually happened. imagine that in washington. the truth is, none of these gimmicks or slogans made a bit of difference. when gas prices finally did fall, it was mostly because the global recession have led to less demand for oil. companies were producing less than the demand for petroleum went down prices went down. now that the economy is recovering, demand is back up. the turmoil in the middle east and it is not surprising oil prices are higher.

every time the price of a barrel of oil on the world market rises by $10, a gallon of gas goes up by 25 cents. the point is, the ups and downs in gas prices historically have tended to be temporary. when you look at the long term trends, they're going to be more ups in gas prices than downs. that is because you have countries like india and china that are growing at a rapid clip. as 2 billion more people start consuming more goods, they want cars just like we have got cars, they want to use energy to make their lives easier, just like we have got. it is absolutely certain that demand will go a lot faster than

supply. it is a fact. here is the bottom line. there are no quick fixes. anybody who tells you otherwise is not telling you the truth. we will keep on being a victim to shifts in the oil market until we finally get serious about a long-term policy for a secure, affordable energy future. we will have to think long term which is why i came here. to talk to young people here at georgetown. you have more of a stake in us getting our energy policy right than just about anybody. here is a source of concern. we have known about the dangers

of our oil dependence for decades. richard nixon talked about free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. every president since that time has talked about free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. politicians of every stripe have promised energy independence but that promise has so far gone unmet. i talked about reducing america's dependence on oil when i was running for president. i am proud of the historic problem -- progress we have made towards that goal. we will talk about that in a little bit. i have to be honest. we run into the same political gridlock, the seema inertia that has held us back for decades. that has to change. that has to change. we cannot keep going from shock

when gas prices go up to a trance when they go back down. we go back to what we are doing until there is a price spike and then we are shocked again. we cannot rush to propose action when gas prices are high and hit the snooze button when they fall. we cannot keep on doing that. the united states of america cannot afford to buy that our long term prosperity, our long- term security on a resource that will eventually run out. even before runs out, we will get more expensive -- it will get more expensive to extract from the ground. we cannot afford it when the cost is so high. not when you're generation needs to get this right. it is time to do what we can to

secure our energy future. and today, i want to announce a new goal, one that is reasonable, one that is achievable, and one that is necessary. when i was elected to this office, americans imported 11 million barrels of oil a day. by a little more than a decade from now, we will have cut that by one-third. that is something we can achieve. [applause] we can cut our oil dependence by one-third. i set this goal knowing that we are still going to have to import some oil. it will remain an important part of our energy portfolio for quite some time, until we have gone alternative energy strategy is fully in force -- strategies

fully in force. when we look at -- when it comes to the oil we import from other nations, we have to look at neighbors like canada and mexico that are stable and steady and reliable sources. we have to look at other countries like brazil. part of the reason i went down there is to talk about energy with the brazilians. the recently discovered significant new oil reserves, and we can share american technology and know-how with them as they develop these resources. but our best opportunities to enhance our energy security can be found in our backyard. because we boast one critical, renewable resource that the rest of the world cannot match. american ingenuity. american ingenuity, american know-how.

to make ourselves more secure, to control our energy future, we will have to harness all that ingenuity. it is a task will not be finished with by the end of my presidency, or even by the end of the next presidency. if we continue the work that we have begun over the last two years, we will not just spark new jobs, industries, and yourations, we will lealeave generation and future generations with a country that is safer, that is healthier, and that is more prosperous. today, my administration is releasing a blueprint for a secure energy future the outlines of a comprehensive national policy, one that we have been pursuing since the day i took office. cutting our oil dependence by one-third as part of that plan. here at georgetown, i would like

to talk in broad strokes about how we can achieve these goals. meeting the goal of cutting our oil dependence depends on two things. finding and producing more oil at home, second, reducing our overall dependence on oil with cleaner alternative fuels and greater efficiency. this begins by continuing to increase america's oil supply. even for those of you who are interested in seeing a reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels -- and i know how passionate young people are about issues like climate change -- the fact of the matter is, is that for quite some time, america is going to be still dependent on oil in making its economy work. now, last year, american oil production reached its highest level since 2003.

for the first time in more than a decade, while we imported account for less than half of the liquid fuel we consumed. that was a good trend. and my administration is encouraging offshore oil exploration and production as long as it is safe and responsible. i do not think anyone here has forgotten what happened last year, where we had to do with the largest spill in our history. i know some of the fishermen in the gulf coast has nohave not forgotten. and what we learned from that disaster helped us put in place marder standards of safety and responsibility. for example, if you're going to drill in deep water, you have to

prove before you start drilling that you can contain an underwater spill. that is just common sense. we have been hearing folks say, the obama administration, the restrictions on how well companies operate offshore. well, yes, because we just spend all that time, energy, and money trying to clean up a big mess. i do not know about you, but i do not have an nation. i remember these things. [laughter] [applause] i think it was important for us to make sure that we prevent something like that from happening again. [applause] expeditere working to new drilling permits for companies that meet these higher standards. since there were put in, we have approved 39 new shallow water

permits, we have approved 7 deepwater permits in recent weeks. when it comes to drilling offshore, my administration approved more than two permits last year for every new well but the industry started to drill. and they claim that my illustration is responsible for oil prices because we have shut down oil production, and they claim is simply untrue. it does not track with reality. we have said if you are drilling offshore, you have to have a plan to make sure that we do not have the kind of catastrophe we had last year. and i do not think that there's anybody who should dispute that that is the right strategy to pursue. moreover, we're pushing the oil industry to to get damage of the opportunities they have already got. right now, the industry holds

tens of millions of acres of leases where they are not producing a single drop. they're sitting on supplies of american energy that are ready to be tapped. that is what part of our plan is to provide better incentives that promote rapid, responsible to delmon of these resources. we're exploring and assessing new frontiers from alaska to the mid and sell the linnik states because producing more oil in america can help lower oil prices or create jobs and can enhance energy security, but we have to do it in the right way. if we increased mazzucco production, that will not be the long-term solution to our energy

challenge. in about the statistical the time and forgive me for repeating it again. america holds 2% of the world's proven oil reserves. what that means is, is that even if we drilled every drop of oil out of every single one of the reserves that we possess, offshore and onshore, it's the one not be enough to meet our long-term needs. we consume 25% of the world's oil. we have 2% of the rate serves -- reserves. even if we doubled u.s. oil production, we're still really short. so the only way for america's energy supply to be truly secure is by permanently reducing our dependence on oil. we're going to have to find ways to boost our efficiency so we use less oil. we have got to discover and

produce cleaner, renewable sources of energy but also produce less carbon pollution, which is threatening our climate. and we have got to do it quickly. no in terms of new sources of energy, we have a few different options. the first is natural gas. recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves, perhaps a century's worth of reserves, 100 years worth of reserves, in the shale under our feet. but just as it is true in terms of us extracting oil from the ground, we have to make sure that we are extracting natural gas safely, without polluting our water supply. that is why i asked secretary chu to work with other agencies, industry,broke ganatural gas

state, and environmental experts to improve the safety of this process. and chu is the right to do this. he has got a nobel prize in physics. he actually deserved his nobel prize. [laughter] [applause] and this is the kind of thing that he likes to do for fun on the weekend. he goes into his garage and tinkers around and figures out how to extract natural gas. i am going to embarrass him further. [laughter] last year, when we were trying to figure out how to close the the cap, i sent chu down to sit in the bp offices, and he

essentially designed the cap that work and he dropped the specs for it and had bp building, constructed. t it.ild it, constructing this is somebody who knows what he is doing. so for those of you who are studying physics, it may actually pay off some day. but the potential for natural gas is enormous. and this is an area where there has actually been some broad bipartisan agreement. last year, more than 150 members of congress from both sides of the aisle produce legislation providing incentives to use cleaner burning natural gas in our vehicles instead of oil. that is a big deal. getting 150 members of congress to agree on anything is a big deal. they were joined by t. boone pickens, a businessman who made

his fortune on oil, but who is out there making the simple point that we simply cannot drill our way out of our energy problems. so i ask members of congress and all the interested parties involved to keep at it, pass a bill that helps us achieve the goal of extracting natural gas in a safe, environmentally sound way. another substitute for oil that holds tremendous promise is renewable biofuels, not just ethanol, but by a fuel made from things like switchgrass and wood chips and biomass. if anybody doubts the potential of these fuels, consider brazil. i was just there last week. half of brazil's vehicles can

run on biofuel, half of their fleet of automobiles can run on biofuel instead of petroleum. last week, our air force used an advanced biofuel planned to fly a record 22, and f-22 rapture faster than the speed of sound. think about that. fly fasterrapturraptor can than the speed of sound on biomass, that i know the old bitter that you love god, that you are driving around and can probably do so too. there is no reason why we cannot have our cars do the same. the air force's m. e. to half -- get half of its domestic jet fuel from alternative sources by 2016. i am directing the navy and the provision of energy and agriculture to work with the private sector to create advanced by a fuel that can power not just fighter jets but trucks and commercial airlines.

there is no reason we should not be using these renewable fuels throughout america. that is what we're investing in things like filling stations and research into the next generation of biofuel. one of the biggest problems we have with alternative energy is not just producing the energy but disturbing it. we have gas stations all around the country, so whenever you need gas in the you can fellow, it does not matter where you are. we have got to have that same kind of distribution network when it comes to our renewable energy sources so that when you are converting to a different kind of car that runs on a different kind of energy, you are going to be able to have that same convenience. otherwise, the market will not work and it will not run. -- it will not grow. over the next two years, we will help entrepreneurs break ground for a boy or next generation biorefineries.

each with a capacity of more than 20 million gallons per year. we should look for ways to reform biofuel incentive to make sure they are meeting today's challenges and they are saving taxpayers money. as we replace oil with fuels like natural gas and biofuel, we can reduce our dependence by making cars and trucks that use less oil in the first place. 70% of our petroleum consumption goes to transportation. 70%. and by the way, so does the second biggest chunk of most families budget goes into transportation. that is why one of the best ways to make our economy less dependent on oil and save more money is to make our transportation sector more efficient. we went through 30 years where we did not raise fuel efficiency standards on cars.

and part of what happened in the u.s. auto industry was because oil appeared relatively cheap, the u.s. auto industry decided we are just going to make our money on suvs and we will not worry about fuel efficiency. 30 years of lost time when it comes to technology that could improve the efficiency of cars. so last year, we established a ground breaking national fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. we did this last year without legislation. we just got all parties together and we got them to agree -- automakers, auto workers, environmental groups, industry. that means our cars will be getting better gas mileage, saving one. billion barrels of oil -- barrels of oil over the life of the program, 1.8 billion.

our consumers will save money from fewer trips to the pump -- $3,000 on average over time it will save because of these higher efficiency standards. our auto makers will build more innovative products. right now, there are cars rolling off the assembly lines in detroit with combustion engines, i am not talking about hybrids, combustion engines that get more than 50 miles per gallon. we know how to do it. we know how to make our cars more efficient. going forward, we will continue to work with the automakers, with the auto workers, with states, to ensure the high quality fuel-efficient cars and trucks of tomorrow are built right here in the u.s. that will be up top priority for us -- a top priority for us. [applause] this summer we will propose the

first ever broke efficiency standards for heavy-duty trucks. this fall, we will announce the next round of appeals standards for cars that builds on what we have already done. and by the way, the federal government is going to need to lead by example. the fleet of cars and trucks were used in the federal government is one of the largest in the country. we have got a lot of cars. and that is why we have already doubled the number of alternative vehicles in the federal fleet. and that is why today i am directing agencies to purchase 100% alternative fuel, hybrid, or electric vehicles by 2015. [applause] all of them should be alternative fuel. going forward, we will partner with private companies that want to upgrade their large fleets. and this means by the way that

you students, as consumers or future consumers of cars, you have got to make sure that you are boosting demand for alternative vehicles. you're going to have a responsibility as well, because if alternative fuel vehicles are manufactured by you guys are not buying them, folks will keep on making cars that do not have the same fuel efficiency. so you have power in this process, and the decision to make individually in your lives will say something about how serious we are when it comes to energy independence. we hve also made historic investments in high-speed rail and mass transit, because part of making our transportation sector cleaner and more efficient involves offering all americans, whether they are urban, suburban, or borough, the choice to be mobile without having to get in a car and pay for gas.

still, there are few breakthroughs as promising for increasing fuel efficiency and reducing our dependence on oil as electric vehicles. soon after i took office, i set a goal of having 1 million electric vehicles on our roads by 2015. we have created incentives for american companies to develop these vehicles and for americans who want them to buy them. so new manufacturing plants are opening over the next few years. a modest $2 billion investment in competitive grants to develop the next generation of batteries for these cars has jump started a big new american industry. pretty soon, america will be home to 40% of global manufacturing capacity for these events batteries. and for those of you were wondering what that means, the thing that has been holding

back of electric vehicles is the battery that stores that electricity, that energy. and the more efficient, the more light way we can make those batteries, the easy it is to manufacture those cars at a competitive price. and we can have that industry here in the united states of america, that means jobs. if those batteries are made here, the cars are made here. those cars are made here, we're putting americans back to work. to make sure we stay on this goal, we aren't going to need to do more by offering more powerful incentives to consumers and by rewarding the communities that pave the way for the adoption of these vehicles. one other thing. about electric cars. you do not need to talk to chu

about this. electric cars run on electricity. and so even if we reduce our oil dependency and we're producing these great electric cars, we will have to have a plan to change the way we generate electricity in america. so that it is cleaner and safer and healthier. we know that i sharing in a clean energy economy has the potential of creating untold jobs in the u.s. but we will have to think about how do we produce electricity more efficiently? in addition to producing, we have to think about making sure we are not wasting energy. i do not know how we're doing on the georgetown campus, mr. president, but every institution and household has to

start thinking about how are we reducing the amount of energy we're using and doing it in more efficient ways. our homes and businesses consume 40% of the energy we use and it costs billions of dollars in energy. manufacturers that require large amounts of energy to make their products, their challenge by rising energy costs and so you cannot separate the issue of all dependents from the issue of how we're producing more energy generally. that is why we propose new programs to help americans upgrade their homes and businesses and plans with new energy-efficient building materials, new lighting, new windows, new heating and cooling systems. investments that will save consumers and business owners tens of billions of dollars a year and free money for money and investment and hiring and

putting contractors to work as well. the nice thing about energy efficiency is, we have the technology. we do not have to create something new. we have to help businesses and homeowners put in place the insulation, the energy-efficient windows, the energy-efficient lighting. it will get their money back. you will save money on your electricity bill that pays for these improvements that you made, but a lot of people may not have the money up front, so we have got to give them some incentives to do that. just like the fuels we use in our cars, we're going to have to find cleaner renewable sources of electricity. today, two fifths of our electricity comes from clean energy sources. but we can do better than that. i think with the right incentives in place, we can clean energy.e of energ

that is why in my state of the union address, i called for nuclear energy standard for america. by 2035, up 8% of electricity needs to come from a wide range of clean energy sources, renewal bulls like wind and solar, efficient natural gas, and, yes, we're going to have to havexamid how we make a clean coal and nuclear power work. in light of the ongoing events in japan, a want to take a minute to talk about nuclear power. right now, america gets one- fifth of our electricity from nuclear energy. it is important to recognize that nuclear energy does not emit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. those of us who are concerned about climate change, we have to recognize that nuclear power if

it is safe can make a significant contribution to the climate change question. i am determined to ensure that it is safe. in light of what is happening, i have requested a comprehensive safety review by the nuclear regulatory commission to make sure that all of our nuclear energy facilities are safe. we will incorporate those conclusions and lessons from japan in design and the building of the next generation of plants. but we simply cannot take it off the table. my administration is leading global discussions toward a new international framework in which all countries who are operating nuclear plants are making sure they are notbut more broadly, an

energy standard can expand the scope of clean energy investments because of what it does is it just cutting edge companies the certainty that they need to invest. essentially what it does is it says to companies, you know what? he will have the customer if you are producing clean energy. utilities' need to buy a certain amount of clean energy in their overall portfolio, and that means that innovators are willing to make those big capital investments. we have got to start now because -- think about this -- in the 1980's, america was home to more than 80% of the world pottery when capacity, 90% of the world of reseller capacity. we were the leaders in wind and solar. we owned the clean energy economy in the '80s. guess what. today, china has the most wind

capacity. germany has the most solar capacity. both invest more in clean energy than we do, even though we are a larger economy at a substantially larger user of energy. we have fallen behind on what is going to be the key to our future. other countries are now exporting technology we pioneered and they are going after the jobs that come with it because they know that the countries that lead the 21st century claim energy economy will be the countries that lead the 21st century global economy. i want america to be that nation. i want america to when the future. -- win the future. [applause] a clean energy standard will help drive private investment in innovation.

i want to make this point -- government funding will still be critical. the investments might administration has made in renewable energy and technology has helped private sectors grow and hire hundreds of thousands new workers. i had visited gleaming new solar arrays that are among the largest in the world. i have tested electric vehicles of fresh off the assembly line. i did not relate tested. i drove it 5 feet before the secret service told me to stop. [laughter] i have toured factories that used to be shattered where they are now building advanced when the blades that are as long as 747. they are building towers to support them. i have seen the scientist searching for the next big breakthrough in energy. none of this would have happened without government support.

i understand we have a tight fiscal situation. it is fair to ask, how do we pay for government's investment in energy? we will have to make some tough choices. we will have to cut what we do not need and invest in what we do need. unfortunately, some folks want to cut critical investments in clean energy. they want to cut our research and development into new technologies. they are shortchanging the resources necessary even to properly issued new permits for offshore drilling. these cuts would eliminate thousands of private-sector jobs. it would terminate scientists and engineers. it would and fellowships for researchers, suit -- some who may be here at georgetown, a graduate students and other talent that we desperately need to get into this area in the

21st century. that does not make sense. we are already paying a price for our inaction. every time we fill up, every time we lose a job or business to countries that are investing more than we do in clean energy, when it comes to our air, our water, and the climate change that threatens this planet that you in here it, we are already paying a price. these are costs that are already bearing. and if we do nothing, the price will go up. at moments like these, sacrificing these investments in research and development, in supporting clean energy technologies -- that would weaken our energy economy and make us more dependent on oil. that is not a game to win the future. that is a visit to keep us mired in the past. i will not accept that outcome for the united states of america. we are not going to do that.

let me close by speaking directly to the students here. the next generation who are going to be writing the next great chapter in the american story. the issue of energy independence is one that america has been talking about since before your parents were your age, since before you were born. and you also happen to go to a school that for a long time has suffered from a chronic unwillingness to come together and make tough choices. and so i forgive you for thinking that maybe there is not much we can do to rise to this challenge. maybe some of you are feeling kind of cynical or skeptical about whether we are actually going to solve this problem. but everything i have seen and experienced with your generation convinces me otherwise.

i think that precisely because you are coming of age at a time of such rapid and sometimes unsettling change, born into a world with your walls, educated in an era of cost that information, tempered by war and economic turmoil -- because that is the world in which you are coming of age, i think you believe as deeply as any of our previous generations that america can change it and it can change for the better. we need that. we need you to dream big. we need you to summon that same spirit of unbridled optimism and that old willingness to tackle tough challenges and see those challenges through that led previous generations to rise to greatness -- to save a

democracy, to touch the moon, to connect the world with our own science and our own imagination. that is what america is capable of. that is what you have to push america to do, and it will be you that pushes it. that history of ours, of meeting challenges -- that is where birthright. -- that is your birthright. you understand that there is no problem out there that is not within our power to solve. i do not want to lead this challenge for future presidents. i do not want to leave it for my children. i do not want to leave it for your children. so, yes, selling it will take time and it will take effort. it will require our brightest scientists, are most creative companies. it will acquire all of us, democrats, republicans, and

everybody in between to do our part. but with confidence in america and in ourselves and in one another, i know that is a challenge will solve. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> there were more details about the president's energy policy at the white house. this is one half hour. >> i had the secretary of energy, steven chu, and the deputy assistant for the president on energy policy. secretary chu will open with a statement. i will remain to take questions on other issues after they leave. thank you very much. i will call on people once they start. >> thank you and good afternoon. we heard the president talked about a bold, but in addition --

but ambitious and achievable goal to reduce our oil imports by a third by 2025. this is a goal i believe is achievable. instead of spending $1 billion a day to import foreign oil, this is a goal we believe we can be investing in money and creating wealth in the united states. to achieve this goal will require two things -- it will require increasing domestic production and decreasing our dependence on oil. let me talk about some of the things the administration has been doing over the past two years. that is expected to save $1.80 billion of oil per year. we have made great strides in electric vehicles. by 2009, the united states sold

02% of batteries. we expect that we'll have a battery capacity of producing up to 500,000 batteries per year. this could be 40% of the advanced battery market. we have made great strides in battery research. a lot of the battery technologies that are now being invented in the united states is being built in the united states. there will be a huge market for these batteries. we have made great strides in biofuels. research done two years ago are being put into power plants today. we expected to continue. we expect to be announcing ground making plans for by a new refinery plants. we have assembled teams. at caltech there is an energy team that will correct biofuels

directly from sunlight. this is an economic way of bypassing other forms of energy. these are things we have been doing. natural gas -- as you all know, natural gas is a -- we are growing our natural gas reserves. we believe it is possible to safely and responsibly extract natural gas. the u.s. government remains committed to that. electricity -- the president has spoken before about electricity. we have roughly 40% of our electricity in clean energy if you consider nuclear, when, solar. the president announced in the state of the union that by 2035 we will expect 8% of our energy to come from other sources.

this unleashes a lot of the capital sitting on the sidelines for lack of certainty that could be invested in america to create jobs. these are many of the things we are doing today. despite my message, we feel the pain that all americans feel on the price of gasoline today. as the president stressed, this is not a short-term fix. we will be increasing the production of oil in the united states, but there is a global plan put forward that will require concentrated efforts for years to come. ultimately, what this is about is diversifying our supply of energy from oil into many other different sectors. with that, we will have the means to go forward. >> questions.

>> mr. secretary, one of the things republicans have said about comments the president made is that the u.s. could become a major customer of brazil's oil sources. given his intentions to reduce this by a third [unintelligible] >> if the president is talking about partnering with brazil in the development of their oil resources. american companies have a lot of technical expertise in drilling for oil, especially deep water oil. this allows american companies to partner with brazil said they can develop their resources. this is by no means in contradiction with decreasing our reliance on foreign oil. we also want to increase production of domestic oil both

offshore and onshore. this is in no way contradictory to that. >> do you think the american people need to change their behavior at all in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil or is this something that will happen for us magically? >> given the statements over the last many decades, this is something that requires a concerted effort on both policy. in terms of behavior -- the oil shock that occurred in 2008 and that we are living again in 2011, we want to take stock of what has been happening since that time and say, "let's look

for a long-term path in what we need to do and increased efficiency in personal vehicles appear "it means electrification in many cases. if you ask me two years ago, could i say there would be a mass marketed car within the next five years where you could drive up 200 miles in a car you can buy for less than $30,000? i would say i was not sell it short. today, i believed it is within grasp. there are many countries and companies that recognize that these batteries and vehicles will become a reality. >> beyond more fuel efficient vehicles, you do not think there is anything we can do in terms of changing our behavior? >> the terrible thing about

higher oil prices is it comes right out of your pocketbook every week. this is something that the administration feels very deeply about. that automatically does things. we want to say that we had a plan going forward to gradually give americans the real long- term solutions. there are electric vehicles, biofuels, natural gas. >> was there ever any consideration changing american's behavior by raising taxes on fuel? >> the president of the plan was outlined. we'll stick to that plan. it is a solid plan going forward to the future. >> did you expect you would

oversee so much additional drilling? this seems to be a lot different from what we heard during the campaign. >> i think the president has said many times that development of the fossil fuel resources in the united states, as long as it is a comprehensive plan, is part of the package. we remain committed to that. >> just so the american people understand, is there anything in the spectrum of things that the administration is working on that would bring down the price of gas in the next year? if not, is there anything that will have an effect on the prices? >> it is hard to predict how the short-term price of gasoline

would affect it. if one says that america is committed to further exploration, further drilling for gasoline and oil in the united states, that might have some effect. it is very hard to predict what is going on there. what you want to do is show that we had a plan going forward that diversifies the energy supply and transportation. given that plan that diversifies that said that americans have a choice. they can plug in their cars to drive. they can use more efficient cars as well as as oil and gas that will be around for decades. when you have those choices, you are no longer subject to a single or -- single force. that is a common factor in the oil markets. -- how can you convince americans that republicans are wrong that the president is

cheering on a $4 a gallon gasoline because it adds pressure to implement new energy policies? >> i do not they anyone would say that. the price of gas and oil today is so high this is causing hardships for americans and business. the economy is fragile. i do not think anyone can seriously consider that anyone in public office, especially the president, would be cheering this on. we want to give americans solutions that will work today and continue to work so that two years from today is something like this should happen again, we are not surprised. we will be in a better position to absorb that. we have seen americans flocking to automobiles with much higher gas mileage. they are voting with their feet.

as we develop better and more fuel efficient cars, the american people will vote with their feet. they can see what might be happening in the long term. americans will make the right choice. >> mr. secretary, the president talk about incentives for gas and oil leases. when will these come into effect? >> i do not know what the exact fraction is. right now, there is over 50% of leases that are given aout. >> to sas department of interior report that was issued yesterday, all short leases or about 70%. 50% on short leases remained

vital -- remain vital. we have to find you incentives for those idle leases. we are looking at the terms of the lease sales so that when a company is going out proactively and developing aggressively on their leases, there are additional opportunities we have to extend it. >> when will it takes effect? >> on some estimates this, for offshore leases we are already implementing those. we need legislation in order to do that for onshore leases. this is part of a broad array of initiatives that the president talked about today and part of what we take is an effective component of a bipartisan bill on energy policy.

i think we are doing the offshore component and we are working with congress on the on short component. >> had been extended in the offshore leases? >> for companies that are doing due diligence to develop the leases they currently have. again, we want to make sure that when we are going out there and companies have access to significant amounts of oil and gas, that those resources are being developed in a timely manner. for offshore leases, there are already some measures we have taken to make sure that is happening to bring oil and gas resources to the american people. >> the president has talked about eight required component. are you convinced that tepco has

the japanese situation under control? do you think investment in america will ever work on nuclear in sick enough to work on these plants? >> let's talk about american nuclear reactors. we believe they are safe. the president has ordered the nuclear regulatory agency be . we are also adding to that. this tragedy that happened in japan, one of the fourth largest earthquakes in recorded history, one of the largest tsunamis in recorded history, will teach us some lessons. we will use those lessons going forward to make the current suite of nuclear reactors safer. will also use those lessons [unintelligible] we do this all of the time

whenever there is an accident like this whether it be an airplane or an oil refinery. we go back, we learn our lessons, and we make it much different. with regards to tepco, these are very trying circumstances. we are working very hard with them to lend assistance or technical advice. we are not there on the ground, but we do have conversations with them daily. we are working very hard with them to mitigate any future potential risks as best we can. i cannot really be sure of anything cents i am here and they are there. in regard to american reactors, we believe they are safe. as a result of this tragedy that will be safer. >> you say you feel america's

pain. what mechanisms are in place right now to make manufacturers not balance the consumer -- not gouge the consumer? those cars are much more expensive than the average priced cars? >> you are talking about the gouging of highly fuel efficient cars? >> hybrid cars. those cars that help you use less gas. >> i do not know. >> there are a couple of days. through strategic investments in the recovery act and the budget, the president has made significant investments in the

research and development for the advanced technology that will bring more fuel efficient cars and trucks to americans. we are working every day. secretary chu can tell you what we are doing to bring the prices down for these policies and what we are doing to look not only at cars and trucks, but at biofuels as a solution to bring the crisis under control. >> the allegations of price gouging at car dealerships or gas stations, up every now and then. i am personally not really sure as to the extent it is happening. this is self correcting. in the last two years, the american car companies or bouncing back. they are producing more fuel efficient cars. americans are recognizing that those are the cars to buy.

the administration has been incredibly supportive. when you have that growing, it would naturally take care of itself. >> we were talking about the rest of new nuclear plants in this country. are there any concerns about any new buildings or construction for nuclear facilities that are not located in popularity -- populated areas? >> what the public does not appreciate is that many of these reactors were built 45 years ago in places that were not so populated. the population grew up all around them. as we go forward and find places -- let me also say that

newer reactors -- if you look at the current fleet of reactors, they are constantly being upgraded. a team of scientists and i toured one of them because it was a sister reactor of the one in japan. we can actually walk inside and get a feel for what was going on so that we could actually get a better firsthand experience about what might be possible. even when we were touring these decommissioned reactors, we got a good flavor for the cost of upgrading of safety during the lifetime of that reactor. this will continue. in addition, the newark reactors that are being built -- the new reactors that are being built will be safer than the ones built 45 years ago. it is like today's automobile and today's airplanes. >> i know you are not on the

ground in japan, but you testified on the issue a few weeks ago would you give us your impression on the reactors at what will happen? >> first, there are three direct reactors under stress -- under distress. we are worried about the fields, especially the one with the most honest fuel. you have to keep the water in the fuel pond and keep cooling the reactor. there has been damaged in the course of three reactors -- significant damage. we are monitoring that situation. we are also worried about how to keep them cool and, in the longer term, how do you get the salt water out of those

reactors and resupply them with fresh water so that you can minimize any adverse riffed -- minimize any adverse affects? had you go into a long-term stable position where you can keep cooling the reactors and make sure the fuel pond's remain filled with water? >> mr. secretary, at what point in the future what alternative fuels surpassed oil consumption in the u.s.? will that ever happen? >> yes, it will. actually, let me make it broader. it is not only by oil fuels for transportation, but i would say, renewable energy in general. what the department of energy is focused on is to develop this technology is where the cost of electricity would be equal to or

less than the cost of new fossil fuels. again, this is something where the debate -- we are confident the business plans of countries -- of companies across the world will drop by 50% before the end of this decade. we begin to look at whether it is possible to drop it by 75% by the end of this decade. 75% is the magical number in my mind. that means the cost of electricity is less than the cost of new fossil energy. we are trying to target fossil fuel in design so that you get also biomass to replace fossil fuel based on agricultural waste like corncobs -- lumber waste

residues. we are working on ways to convert that stock into dropping substitute fuels -- diesel, gasoline, jet fuels. in the laboratories at this is being done. the question is, can be made commercially viable and when? when you make it commercially viable you are onto something very big. it can begin to be a very significant part of it. it does not complete -- compete directly. >> is there a time in the future when fossil fuels or not the predominant source of energy? >> i think in the next couple of decades, fossil fuels like oil and gas will be a very big part of the mixture, but in these coming years, i cannot promise you that the transition will, 10 years from now or 15 years from

now. in this part of the century, it will be quite competitive. it also depends on the biomass capabilities of the world. that is the other complication. >> if we are serious about gas prices and are serious about these challenges, then we need a serious plan in order to take our country there. the president set out a new goal for oil savings. we will be releasing a blueprint that talks about what we need to do to diversify our energy sources and how we will get there. >> mr. secretary, we have been hearing presidents talk about reducing dependence on foreign oil for decades. what will president obama's plan work? >> i think, technologically, we are closer than we ever were.

as i said before, i was on the advisory board of the barry company. if you ask me four or five years ago the prospect of having at a battery or you could drive 300 miles in a single charge, i would have said, "i do not know." i would say now there is a 60% chance that we would be testing batteries in these cars. there are lots of things you have to do. but there is a 50% probability that we will be testing a battery one-third the cost, three times the range. at that point, it is mass- market. it flys off the shelf. it is technology driven. if you ask me five years ago the possibilities of having biofuels, i would have said, "i

do not relate note." five or 10 years is a bit longer time period. i would be surprised if it is not a major attraction of fuel in the united states in 15 years. we are blessed with that. >> just to build on that for the moment, part of the answer is looking at the two years of the administration and the actions we have taken. first and foremost, the recovery act -- we have the development in clean energy and development. the president set a goal of 1.5 million electric vehicles on the road by 2016. we used our authority in new and interesting ways to establish the new efficiency standard that secretary chu was talking about.

that is a 1.8 billion barrels of oil savings over the lifetime of the program. we have to talk about the role of the department of energy and the role of the epa. how will we use our authority to bring solutions to american families and work with congress to find additional bipartisan solutions? >> you believe america is still addicted to oil. >> we would agree that america certainly needs to continue producing our oil supplies in the short term. as the president says, we have some steps we need to take. we are going to continue to build on them to decrease the use of oil and resources. we need a long-term plan. as long as we do not have a long-term plan that is legitimate, which will continue to be stuck in these oil price shocks. >> the you believe we need

europe to lower the gas prices? >> i believe there is enough consensus today. given the long-term prospects, i think americans realize in the world realizes that given the demand in china, followed by india, most of the automobiles being sold in china will increase demand in the coming decades with the finance -- with the finite resources we have -- this is the way the world is going to be. you cannot predict what is going to happen a year ago today in terms of prices. he emphasized that prices are more likely to go up and go down. given that, the handwriting is on the wall. we are going to diversify.

we are going to become less dependent on oil for transportation. that is where we get our transportation security. that is how we make it easier on the american pocketbook. >> coming up on c-span tonight, the head of the u.s. nuclear regulatory commission talks about a local plant safety. then, a house hearing on the troubled assets relief program. later, president obama outlines the administration's energy policy. robert gates and joint chiefs chairman mike mullen come to capitol hill tomorrow to testify about military operations in libya. you can watch both of them live beginning with the house foreign services committee at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. then at 2:15 p.m., they will be interviewing the senate armed services committee.

both hearings will be on c-span3 and on our website, c-span.org. >> nearly 1500 middle and high school students submitted documentaries on the famed "washington d.c. krewe might lance." what's the videos every day at 6:00 -- 6:50 p.m. eastern. strain the be as any time at studentcam.org. >> the chairman of the u.s. nuclear regulatory commission recently turned out -- recently returned from japan. he testified before a senate panel today. he was questioned about how nuclear waste is stored in the u.s. this is one hour and 15 minutes.

>> our thoughts are with the people of japan to continue to suffer. i spoke to the ambassador saturday and conveyed my deep sympathy. for all of us who have been watching this on television through the horrors of the earthquake and tsunami, we want to extend our very best to the people of japan and our deepest sympathy for what is an enormous loss. the earthquake and resulting

tsunami occurred at 19 days ago. as we speak, workers at the fukushima nuclear site continue their work to contain the situation and they have not been called national heroes. it will be months before we know what happened and why. it is too early to call this a hearing about lessons learned from the disaster in japan, but we do know enough to start asking critical questions about nuclear energy policy in our own country. last week, i visited california pottery two nuclear power plants with representatives from the united states geological survey and the nuclear regulatory commission. the diablo canyon plant is near san luis obispo.

several people lived within 50 miles. it employs 1200 people. further south, nearly 7.4 million people live within 50 miles of the san onofre generating station near san clemente. i came away with some good news. i feel better about the safety precautions in place that these nuclear plants. i was impressed with the dedication and the professionalism of the large staff that runs these facilities and the regulatory agency to guard against risk. but we need to reconfirm that these facilities are designed to withstand the threat we can foresee and prepared to respond to scenarios we never imagined. that is why redundant systems, backup systems, and plans are so important.

most significantly, i believe we must begin to rethink how we manage it spent fuel. spent fuel must remain in pools for five to seven years. these are the polls in workers are pouring water into in japan. however, these polls often become defacto long-term storage with fuel assemblies we wracked, thus increasing the heat load of the pools. in california, fuel removed from reactors in 1984 is still cooling in the spent fuel pools. this process may have regulatory approval, but i have a hard time understanding why a more rapid transfer of spent fuel to

dry casks has not been done. jimmy, that suggest that we should at least consider a policy that would encourage quicker movements of spent fuel to dry cask storage. we must also consider what broader regulatory reforms may be necessary, beginning with the review of the united states's power plant safety. i am please that the nuclear regulatory commission will undertake both short-term and long-term reviews of nuclear plant safety. mr. chairman, i thank you for that. this kind of self reassessment is appropriate. today, i hope we will get a complete picture of what the nuclear regulatory commission intends to do with these reviews and how quickly they are likely to act on any new safety

regulations. in addition, i think we should take a look at some independent analysis of our nuclear power plant safety with specific attention to threat assessment and the design parameters of our plants. japan has now suffered two earthquakes in the past four years that were larger than the japanese thought possible. each devastated a nuclear power plant that was not designed to endure a quake of that size. we need to think carefully about whether our country has properly estimated the threats to our nuclear facilities and designed the facilities to endure them. an independent review of the design basis for all the united states plants, i believe, should be a priority. the nuclear research and

development program currently finds work related to existing plants, a future reactor designs, and waste issues. the question becomes, do we have the right focus and ballots to promote increased safety? the spent fuel at fukushima problem, contributing to a higher urgent -- contrary to a hydrogen explosion. funding constraints are already requiring programs to rerank research and development priorities. it is clear that we lacked a comprehensive, national policy to address the nuclear fuel cycle, including management of nuclear waste. creating more waste without a

plan increases our risk and expense is taxpayers to more payments for utilities. this hearing is not focused on nuclear waste, but i think it is hard to look at the other aspects of nuclear power and not recognize our lack of appropriate, permanent, retrievable storage. we will be exploring these issues today. we will hear from the chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission, greg jaczko. i look forward to his testimony. we will hear from pete lyons, the acting assistant secretary at the department of energy. our second panel will include someone with a long history in this area and is serving on a blue-ribbon commission developing long-term plans for nuclear waste.

we'll also hear from william levis from pseg power. they operate the same reactor model as those at the figures in that site. our third witness on the panel is from the union of concerned scientists. he has a long history inside and outside the nuclear power industry. we look forward to their testimony. let me now turn to my distinguished ranking member with whom it is a great pleasure to work. we actually worked together on the prior session on the interior committee. i think this is one of our very first hearings on this committee. i very much look forward to working with you in the same way we did on the interior. >> thank you, madam chairman. thank you for that and process for posting this hearing in a

timely way and having witnesses here to we ought to be hearing from -- people who know what they are talking about and are in charge of our nuclear program. those of us who support nuclear power as a part of the mix of electricity generation in the united states and the world ought to be among the first to ask questions about what can we learn from what happened in japan about the safety of our own reactors, but 104 commercial reactors we have in the united states. those on the drawing board of the nuclear regulatory commission. of course, we have a large number of nuclear reactors in our [unintelligible] it has been operating since the 1950's. the question i will be looking forward to hearing more about our many of the same ones as

senator feinstein spoke of. what kind of safety enhancements have been made at our nuclear plants since they began operation? i mean our current plans. how will the next generation of reactors have improved safety capabilities over reactors that are in service, not just in the u.s., but around the world today? one of the most important things the federal government can do about clean energy is research. we have the capacity for that. i was in great britain for three days last week. they reminded me that we are the ones with the national laboratories and the great research laboratories. if any country is good to have advanced research in clean energy, it ought to be the united states. we can do that for ourselves and the world. nuclear power is one area in which we can have that.

better ways of recycling used nuclear fuel. another would be a small, modular reactor. can we build 125 megawatt reactors as a part of our future? there may be other areas. those are the kinds of questions i will be looking for. i thank the chairman for reminding us of the scope of the japan tragedy. it is important to put the entire event in perspective. one is the size of the earthquake and the size of the tsunami and the size of the tragedy. hundreds of thousands of people are still homeless in japan. just as california by its proximity of being on the pacific ocean, tennessee has an unusual relationship with the people of japan. we have become the state with the most japanese manufacturing. we have many japanese friends and family in our state.

we have felt this tragedy even more than we might otherwise have. another way to put it in perspective is to be aware of the record of safety in the united states nuclear industry. i want to confirm this with our witnesses, but my understanding is the only deaths we have ever had in connection with reactors in the united states happened in 1961 at a research reactor. that kind of reactor is not currently used anymore in our country. the 104 reactors we have in the united states had never produced a fatality, in my understanding. the navy ships that have reactors and have had since the '50s have never resulted in a fatality for a reactor accident. while we have heard a lot about three mile island, the worst nuclear accident we have had in our country in the last 30

years, no one was hurt at three mile island. many people do not believe when i say that. i want to confirm that with our witnesses as well. no one was hurt at three mile island. the nuclear industry and nuclear plants have a safety record in the united states that is not surpassed by any other form of energy production. we unfortunately have cold winds that blow up. we of oil rigs that spill. all that is tragedy. will we continue our good safety record in our nuclear plants. one or two other tanks -- it is important to keep in perspective what our alternatives are. every form of energy we have carries with it some risk. in listening to those talk in great britain this past week, madam chairman, they are going to the same sort of analysis. 45% of their electricity comes

from natural gas. it cost twice as much as ours does and half of it comes from russia. i am not sure they want to go up to 80% natural gas from russia. they are calls -- closing their coal plants. they never renewable skin only supply a their only option is to build more nuclear power plants. that is with great britain is planning to do. as you look around the world, we see that nuclear power provides 15% of the world's electricity, the depressant on of japan's electricity, 65 reactors worldwide. 20% of our electricity in the united states comes to nuclear power. 70% of berkeley and electricity -- of our clean electricity

comes from nuclear power. it is hard for me to imagine how we have a future without substantial expansion of nuclear power. some coal plants are going to close. some nuclear power plants are going to close. that makes this a hearing on what we can learn about safety even more important. i think the chairman for holding the hearing and i look forward to the testimony of witnesses. >> thank you very much, senator, for those excellent comic. would like to make a brief statement? >> i would like to make a longer one, but i will not. this is timely, but we are pleased to have -- i had a chance to meet with him yesterday. the review we had was very productive.

i will also attest to his durability. he came in from japan and i was half asleep coming in from new jersey. we welcome you again. i look forward to hearing from them tonight. thank you for having the hearing. >> thank you both for being here today. you've both been involved with the crisis, and i understand that you just returned, mr. chairman, from japan. we would be most interested in your observations and an update on the situation. i want you to be looking for word and talk a little bit about the issues the united states should consider in learning from this event. for formal statements, gentlemen, will be the heart of the record. so please summarize -- will be

made part of the record. >> thank you, chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee today to address the response of the nuclear regulatory commission to these tragic events as you discussed in japan. i traveled to japan over the past weekend and just returned yesterday. i went to be able to directly convey a message of support to our japanese counterparts. i had an opportunity to meet with senior japanese government and officials and i consulted with the team of experts who are in japan as part of our efforts to assist the japanese response to dealing with the nuclear reactors. i would note that that is one small part of a broader u.s. effort to provide assistance to the japanese with regard to all the challenges they're facing.

i would like to reiterate my condolences and sympathy to all of those who have been affected by the earthquake and the tsunami in japan. our hearts to go out all -- go out to all those who have been dealing with the master at -- the aftermath. since friday, march 11, the headquarters operations center has been operating on a 24-hour basis to monitor and analyze evidence a nuclear power plants in japan. despite the high-level support being provided, we do continue to remain focused on our domestic responsibilities. in spite of the evolving situation, the long hours, the intensity of efforts, the staff has approach their responsibilities the dedication, determination, and professionalism. i am very proud of the work they have done and the work they've

done in part of a larger u.s. government after. on march 11, an earthquake hit japan, resulting in a shutdown of more than 10 reactors. the tsunami that followed appears to of caused the loss of normal and emergency power to six units at the fukushima site. after this event, we began interacting with their japanese regulatory counterparts. by the following monday, we have dispatched a total of 11 staff to japan. as our discussion and understanding of the events continue to unfold, at a certain point, we gained a limited amount of information that led us to believe that there was a possibility of a further degradation and the condition of the reactor. based on the information that we have, we look to the situation relative to what we would do in the united states and we determined that it was predicted a similar situation or to

happen, we would be recommending a larger evacuation out to about 50 miles. that was based on limited information and was a conservative and prudent decision that we made. based on the information, we provided a recommendation to the u.s. government and the ambassador in japan issued a notice to american citizens to be advised to evacuate or relocate. domestically, we continue to support efforts to monitor radiation levels that would be seen in the united states. i want to stress that we do not believe that there is any likelihood of a levels of radiation in the united states that could cause any kind of public health and safety concerns.

i want to focus a little bent -- a little bit on the reasons we believe we have strong regulatory program here in the united states. since the beginning of our regulatory program, we have emphasized a philosophy that recognizes that nuclear reactors require the highest standards of design and operation. it doesn't rely on any one single layer of protection for public health and safety. designs for every reactor in this country take into account cites specific factors and include a detailed evaluation for natural events, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and tsunami. there are multiple physical barriers to radiation be released to the public. there are a perverse and redundancies systems that are required to be maintained and frequently tested to ensure that the plant is always a high

condition of readiness. we are alerting -- we are learning organization and we continue to take advantage of the best available information that we have. one of the most significant changes that we made after three mile island in 1979 was an expansion of our resident inspector program. it now has the least two full- time inspectors at each site or we have the ability to have unfettered access to the site at any time. developed a requirement for severe accident management to ensure that in the event, all the things that we think are possible to have been, it's something additionally were to happen, we have a severe accident management guidelines in place to ensure that we can deal properly with the unique safety challenges that may be

presented. in addition, as a result of the events of september 11, we identified important pieces of equipment that would require licensees to have available and in place as well as the procedures and policies to help deal with the very severe type of situation that you are seeing in japan right now. our program of continuous improvement will also include lessons learned from the events in japan. we've already begun enhancing inspection activities their temporary instructions to our inspection staff, including the resident inspectors and the inspectors and all of our regional offices. but it also issued an information notice to licensees to make them aware of activities they should undertake to verify the their capabilities to make conditions due to the severe types of accidents, including a loss of significant safety systems, are in effect and operational. although we are confident about the safety of the u.s. declare power plant, our agency has the

responsibility to the american people to undertake a systematic and methodical review in light of the events in japan. on march 21, the commission established a senior level task force to conduct a comprehensive review of our process these and regulations to determine whether improvements to a regulatory system are needed and to make recommendations to the commission ports policy directions. this review will encompass two pieces. there'll be a short and a longer-term review that will incorporate the best available information that we have. both of these reports will ultimately be made available to the public. i believe we have a strong regulatory program in place that looks at a wide variety of severe physical and natural phenomenon. we have a program in place to account for the things that we may not know today. we have required all of our

plans to have procedures in place to deal with the severe types of accidents. i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. secretary? >> thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the nuclear accident situation in japan. to assist in the country's response, the national nuclear security administration nuclear incident team operations center was activated and has continuously stopped since the

accident. the focus of all activity has been to understand the accident progression and offer advice and assistance to the japanese officials who have direct responsibility to manage the accident recovery. we have deployed about 40 people and more than 17,000 pounds of equipment, including aerial measuring system and a number of management response teams. the mississippi measures radiological contamination on the grounds. -- the ams mess is radiological contamination on the ground. it showed no evidence of significant new releases between march 19 and march 29. in addition, we have been modeling potential transport of radiological materials released from the plant, utilizing the

advisory capability at the launch laboratory. we do not believe the radiation released by the plants poses a public health danger in the united states. low levels of radioactivity have been observed here. the office of nuclear energy has established a response team to utilize -- with japanese agencies and industry. we were a direct -- directly with the institute for nuclear power operations and the nuclear energy institute to encourage the formation of an industry led assistance team. they are now leading this industry team deployed to both japan and headquarters in

atlanta. hasaddition, secretary tchu reached out to directors and other scientists for technical advice. they are in touch with them on a daily basis. beyond our response to the accident, the research development and deployment programs of my office are highly relevant to feature decisions about potential options for nuclear power. our proposed reactor program will explore designed to offer safety and then adjust to the extensive use. we're also conducting research and development in a high- temperature gas reactor designs. are light water reactors sustainability program is exploring whether the lifetime of operating reactors can be extended with no compromise in safety.

we await guidance -- we are conducting research and development into a broad range of options for the nation's fuel cycle. with careful attention to safety, environmental protection, and nonproliferation. safety of future systems is key to all of our programs. selected research areas like fuel that cannot generate a hydrogen in an accident, appeals and are virtually impossible to melt, have very obvious relevant. the new modeling and simulation halt, which is based -- hub will provide important capabilities that can be used to assess and improve the safety of existing reactors. the deputy secretary selling stated that we need nuclear energy as a very important complement the overall portfolio we're trying to build for a

clean energy future. the programs are focused on ensuring the option for safe nuclear power remains open to the nation. in conclusion, the earthquake and the resulting tsunami brought tremendous devastation on japan. at the department of energy, we are making every effort to assist the japanese people in their time of need. thank you. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. we will proceed to the questions. mr. chairman, if i might begin with you. the ranking member mentioned the 104 operating reactors at 65 sites in our country. i understand there are 48 storage facilities in the united states. if my numbers are accurate, does this mean that there are 17 reactor sites with no storage option? >> if your numbers are correct,

there are some sites that have not yet gone to storage. we anticipate in time, that most sites will eventually move in that direction. >> the fuel rods is remain in the spent fuel pools? >> correct. for those sites that have not gone to storage, they remain the polls. these pools are very robust structures that are designed to deal with the kinds of natural phenomenon that we designed the entire reactor site to. it is a very thick reinforced concrete structure, and generally about -- with thick walls and the courts. they provide a very robust protection. >> what are the regulatory requirements relative to spent fuel? they can just sit forever? >> the way our requirements are

based is that we have requirement about the minimum amount of time that the deal would need to be in the pool. generally, we think about five years or so is a reasonable timeframe for the fuel to need to be in the pool because it is very physically hot. that he needs to dissipate and that needs to happen in the pool itself. >> do you have a maximum time? >> we do not have the maximum time, but we do analyze the field that is in the pool. if the new pill were to be added to the pool, that goes through very rigorous analysis to ensure that that can be done safely. >> one should not be surprised in these plans to see fuel in those spent fuel ponce for decades? >> that is possible. certainly. many sites have begun to move their fuel at of the pools.

what the utilities like to do is to preserve some amount of space and the pool to be able to take the field lettuce and a reactor at any time and move that into a pool. that tends to be the condition at which -- if they live is the ability to have the extra space, they will move to dry cask storage. >> in the two plans and looked at, with this? -- with respect to the dry cask, the casks at one plant were standing outside. the casks at the other plant were in a water resistant building. are there any standards for the storage? >> the dry cask storage systems are required to be certified by the nuclear regulatory commission to meet the rigorous standards for dealing with natural phenomenon.

there are two types of systems that are used and i think you saw examples of those types. we have approved of those and they meet our high standards for the natural phenomenon for ensuring that the field will stay sufficiently cold. that we will not have any type of nuclear reaction and the fuel itself. >> why are there no better standards for spent fuel pools? you have good standards for the reactors. it seems to me, not much for the spent fuel. >> the spent fuel pools are considered safety significant systems. they meet a lot of the same standards that the reactors itself would have to meet. the spent fuel pools themselves are required to withstand the natural phenomenon, like earthquakes and tsunamis, that could impact the reactor itself. it is required to be able to

deal with the severe accidents. it is required to be able to deal with the possibility of any type of nuclear reaction happening in the pool itself. there are very high standards and they're very comparable to the reactors themselves. >> been in japan have similar standards? the spent fuel pools could not withstand the tsunami and your quick. >> at this point, we do not know exactly what contributed to the situation in japan. it is unclear whether that was a direct result of the earthquake itself or whether there was some subsequent action that created more difficult situation. from what we do know right now, there are six spent fuel pool in japan. with a good level confidence, we

believe that the spent fuel pools corp. unit won has operated normally. the units to pull has operated a fine. the challenges we are seeing are the would units 3 and 4. it's five and six were also operating in a stable way. we have not seen challenges with all the polls in japan, justice small -- nine >> is the result of the two that failed, was a >> in the superstructure of the pond itself? >> we do not know for sure what the situation is. we believe it is possible for -- that there was a leak in the unit 3 pool. we do not know at this point whether that was the result of the earthquake and a tsunami or some of the subsequent events that happened. those of the kinds of things we will be looking at as we embark

on the short term and longer term review. >> thank you very much. >> contender in the chairman's comments, most of the problems we hear about comes from the inability to cool some of the rods. is that right? >> there are two issues that we're looking at. both of those issues -- is a cooling issue. >> will we talk about used nuclear fuel, in the united states, the amount of such stuff that we would have and the united states could be put on a single football field. is that right? >> i of seen estimates like that. >> -- i have seen estimates like that.

right now, that fuel is stored on site. how long cannot be safely stored there? >> right now, the commission recently affirmed a decision we made over the years. in that decision, we looked at the long-term environmental impacts from that spent fuel. right now, we believe that for a least 100 years, that you can be certification -- stored with very little impact to help and safety. -- health and safety. as part of that decision, the commission asked the staff to go out and take a look to release see if -- if there are any safety issues that could arise that would present a challenge to the kind of approach we have right now. right now, we believe that this

is material that can be stored safely and securely. >> what you are saying is that most of what we have been reading about in japan in terms of the reactor problems has to do with the cooling of used nuclear fuel. in the united states, the amount of that fuel would only fill a football field 20 feet deep. it is stored at 65 different sites. it is our estimates that it can be safely stored there for up to 100 years. >> that is our assessment right now, yes. >> i want to compliment the president when he started his administration. i was afraid he was going to

lead us on a national when to tell policy. his attitude toward nuclear power has been thoughtful and balanced. he has appointed excellent people to your commission. dr. chu has been a strong appointment. equally important, he had a distinguished panel looking at the future of used nuclear fuel. i want to ask you to comment on that. as i understand it, while we can safely store used fuel on site for 100 years, the president and others are suggesting that we research a better way to store it. that way might include reducing its mast by 70 or 80 or 90%, making it that much smaller. finding ways that plutonium was

not separated from it. recycling it. we are comfortable with it being able to store 84 wondered years. over the next tender 20 years, we're looking for a better way to recycle used nuclear fuel. that is what we are hoping to find. am i approximately right? >> i would defer to the secretary. he could best answer that question. >> the mission of the blue- ribbon commission is to explore a wide range of options for a management -- management of used fuel. at the department of energy, we are eagerly awaiting their reports and their suggestions and guidance. the interim report is due by july 29. a final report by january of next year. we anticipate that it will provide important guidance to a

range of our programs that we have at the department of energy. while we are awaiting the report, we do maintain a broad spectrum of research ranging from the nuclear cycle but the country has now all the way to different options, including the reprocessing that you're describing. we view our goal as providing a set of options to the american people. guided by the output of the commission that can lead to a long-term sustainable policy for used fuel management. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> madam chairman, thank you. do we have a better predatory system than japan? -- better regulatory system and japan? is there a difference in the two

systems? >> every country that has nuclear power takes a different approach to dealing with the safety of the reactors. i think we have a system that is well suited to dealing with the safety of the reactors in this country. it is a system that relies on multiple layers of protection. it incorporates a strong basis in technical information. we have a very strong presence of inspectors at the reactor sites. we think this provides a very strong system to ensure the safety of plants in the united states. >> in our conversation yesterday, we discussed the total review of all plants in america. i think that your time target was 90 days. is that correct? >> we are looking at short-term review and 90 days. that will be followed by a much longer-term view as we get more

detailed information. >> we can be assured that the problems that we saw in japan will have a review of of our plants here in the country. >> absolutely. >> we have the oldest plants in america. built in 1969. the foo kee on the -- the fukushima plant to build in 1971. is there any question about age of facility that might have contributed to the difficulty there? >> at this point, we do not know what the exact causes of the situation in japan are. if we look at the situation for the u.s. reactors, all the

reactors that we have had undergone modifications and improvements to deal with the kinds of situations that we are seeing in japan. it has been around since the late 1980's and early 1990's that the accumulation of hydrogen present a significant challenge. the reactors of this type were modified to ensure that they could better mitigate or reduce the likelihood of that type of a hydrogen explosion. we think we have a program that addresses these issues, but we will do these comprehensive reviews to ensure that there is not any information that we have missed. that can better enhance the safety. >> can we say without fear of contradiction? our plans in new jersey -- are plant in new jersey are able to deal with any fall -- now

functioning of the operation there? in 2009, april, we had low level colleagues. the tritium is a fairly dangerous material. what assurance can give to the people and the surrounding area -- did refined and the consequences of the leaks? -- did we find any consequences of the leaks? it defines anything but then -- did we find anything within those families that they have to be concerned about? >> with regard to the leaks, we believe that is not an acceptable situation for any power reactor. with regard to the oyster creek

lake, we did not see any indication of any risk to public health and safety as a result of those particular weeks. in fact, the facility has made significant modifications to dramatically reduce the likelihood of something like that happening. those leaks were not in system said directly affect the ability of the reactor to deal with -- or to ensure the reactor itself continue to function safely. >> thank you. i assume the record will remain open. >> it is an honor to be part of your subcommittee. if memory serves me, the three mile island was 1979.

for 32 years, the nuclear power industry has really been frozen in place with virtually no major expansion across the united states. on the heels of the controversy. i am wondering if the same thing is going to happen. it will once again cause this industry to stop, reflects, and slow down any plans to advance. i also understand the economics of energy. natural gas is much cheaper and safer in many respects. that seems to be the general view of what i see coming from the japanese tragedy. we had a hearing last week in illinois.

half of our electricity is produced by nuclear power generators. representatives from your agency came and we had a long conversation about many things, including nuclear waste on site in illinois. 7,200 tons worth of those nuclear fuel rods. we talked about many different things. we talked about -- i recall from my aunt college, the myth of sisyphus, pushing the boulder up the hill. it appears that we keep wallendas boulder close to the top and never quite --. -- we keep rolling in this boulder close to the top and never quite reached it. if it does, it is 10 years over the horizon and the decision is

made. i have to bring up a question that came a better hearing. what about the situation of reprocessing? there was a time when we took a national position on it to try to be an example to the world. what is happening is that to our major allies and the world, britain and france, have decided that reprocessing is not only ok, it is a great commercial investment. they are receiving the waste from other countries, and dramatically reducing the size of the remaining radioactive challenge. is that the thinking from the carter administration really appropriate today? are we not in a world that has accepted reprocessing? should not be looking at the pedicels, and alternative to $90 billion investment that might come on line 10 years from now?

>> we are currently doing work to develop an infrastructure to support to a reprocessing facility in this country. that activity is that a medium to low level priority and agency because of what we see from the commercial sector about interest in the immediate development or deployment of a reprocessing facility. there is certainly discussion right now. >> please copy. he said there is a lack of interest in the commercial sector. -- let me stop you. you said there is a lack of interest in the commercial sector. >> is it your belief that the private sector believe that maintaining these pools across

the united states is a viable alternative? >> salad, from the agency's perspective, we think that can be done safely and securely. the ultimate decision about how to manage that spent fuel our decisions for the federal government and the private sector itself. some utilities moved more fuel more quickly into dry cask storage. others leave it in polls. >> the push came from the private sector. the argument was, we do not want to be responsible for the spent nuclear fuel rods and the danger associated. we want the government to accept the responsibility. when it comes to a reprocessing, though, they are not interested in the development? >> there is some interest right now. i would say that as with any type of fuel, there is an industry that provide fuel for

the reactors. there are economic considerations that go into whether or not reprocessing is the most effective way to provide the fuel. in many ways, that is what is driving the commercial side. it is a cost issue in many ways right now. >> overtime, -- >> my response would be very lengthy. just to answer a few of your questions, you started with will be incidents in japan impact growth here on nuclear power? the review -- all those factors will come together to help understand and to decide whether regulatory changes are required that may impact the progression of nuclear power. you alluded to that the very low

price of natural gas, the absence of any value placed on carbon, certainly tends to favor approaches to power like natural gas. that impacts any of the clean energy solutions. i could launch into a discussion about reprocessing, but we're way over the time. i will leave it up to you folks as it -- as to whether i should proceed. >> this is my first hearing and i do not want to abuse the privilege. >> thank you very much. this has been very interesting. i do want to move on. i just want to say something. mr. chairman, you said that spent fuel could be stored safely and securely for 100 years. i am amazed that storing its and these polls -- pools for that

period of time. when the design basis of these plans was put into effect, all lot of deep threats were not present. we did not worry about a terrorist bomb that our nuclear power plants. we do today. you have all the spent fuel rods, a very hot, against -- i always thought that dry casks were the best kind of long-term storage. >> this is very much an issue that the commission is going to take a look at. it is part of the short-term and long-term review. the information we have shows that both of these methodologies are equally safe for a very long period of time.

if you are getting to 60, 70 years of spent fuel storage, that likely would not happen because that long. of time, the reactors has been shut down. that would involve taking the fuel at of the polls. -- ou tof the pools. the likelihood of the very severe type of accident from spent fuel gets reduced significantly. the concern is that you have a fire essentially and releases a lot of radioactive material. as it ages, the likelihood of that fire reduces it dramatically. >> but you are adding new abroad all the time. >> -- new rods all the time.

>> when they add new fuel, they added in such a way that they balance the various -- they distribute the hot steel and such a way that reduces the likelihood of this time the fire. the move and shuffled the fuel each time. as he played out a much longer- term -- most fuel begins to move out of the pools. the hot fuel will always have to spend some amount of time in the pools. this is something that i am very confident that we will be looking at. >> thank you. >> i wonder if the doctor agrees from the point of view that the department of energy that used

nuclear fuel can be safely stored on site for up to 100 years. >> i was on the nrc when that question was reviewed. i was part of the decision that evaluated that review. yes, i do agree. however, through the program at the department of energy, we also will be pursuing a program designed to understand what may be the lifetime of limiting aspects of how long dry casks can be safely used. that will be another contribution to this overall discussion of the longevity of dry cask storage. >> thank you very much, gentlemen. this was very helpful. thank you for being here. >> if i could just do one follow-up question. when i raised the issue of reprocessing, i thought the chairman's collision was to the

economics of it. can either of you speak to the economics of reprocessing? driving some sort of dual source from its and dramatically reducing the waste that is left behind as opposed to the current cost of cooling -- >> none indicated that we do have research programs that span the gamut of options. it certainly includes the reprocessing. the blue ribbon commission will be providing guidance on this. as far as the economics, i have never seen a study that claimed that it was less expensive to use reprocessing. there may be other reasons why one would want to reprocess, but there is no study which says that reprocessing would be a lower-cost option. nor am i aware of any utility in

this country that is pushing to move toward reprocessing. there are companies for him that is their product that would be very interested. you mentioned the situation in france and japan. part of our research is designed to understand some of the limitations on particular the approach that is used in japan, which we would not utilize in this country. >> correct me if i'm wrong, via understood -- i understood that it was agreed that the ultimate responsibility for storing this nuclear waste was to be borne by the government. >> that is correct. >> when you say that the commercial private sector does not support reprocessing, it would seem to me that we ought to be asking from the taxpayers viewpoint whether that is an

economic alternative if we are ever to build and transport all the ways in america to that site. >> the policy act also requires that there be a fee levied on all nuclear power reduced that is intended to cover the costs of whatever dispositions system is to be used. whatever the cost of that will be, that is intended to cover the back end. perhaps additional would be required. that would be passed along. >> taking the current french approach on reprocessing, are you saying that we've done an economic problem to compare the economic -- costs of processing? >> there been a number of such models. i cannot characterize all the quickly. i am quite sure that the

majority would say that a repository approach probably is a lower cost. there may be other reasons. there may be other reasons that would drive a one towards some form of reprocessing. i believe the would be different than what it was used in france. >> if i could perhaps clarify my reference to the economics. the economic comparison i am referring to is the cost of fuel that would come directly from the uranium that is mined in the ground as opposed to the cost of fuel that would come from reprocessing. that is the economic comparison i was referring to. in that case, the price of uranium generally favors the naturally mined uranium as a source of fuel. that was the economic comparison. >> thank you very much. >> you testified at an earlier

hearing. the nrc requires evacuation plans, but only for areas within 10 miles of a plant. the united states government has warned americans in japan to stay at least 50 miles away from the damaged reactor is there. the ships were turned around at 60 miles. when i asked you at the previous hearing what you thought was a safe distance, i think that the response that you gave me was 20 miles. can we clear this up? why not required the same kind of evacuation plan to address the same distance in here at home? >> this is likely an issue we will be looking at as part of our short-term and long-term reviews. the 10-mile distance in the

united states is the distance at which we develop preplanned and prepared evacuation plans. it is based on an event that would happen in a very short period of time before which he would not have the ability to develop additional planning for evacuations beyond a certain distance. there is always the possibility that if an event were to develop, that additional protective action could be required beyond 10 miles. the requirements we have in place or for those pre planning that -- in place are for the pre planning that needs to be done. you would not have to take the time to develop the evacuation plans. they are already developed and ready to go. it was something that happened over the course of many days before we got the point at which we look at information that indicated that you would have to go to a greater distance.

so far, the data coming out of the plant continues to show that the safe distance there is approximately 20 miles. there is the work that we do to preplanned. we believe 10 miles a sufficient. that is not necessarily the end of any protective action. you could take additional action if necessary. >> i look forward to hearing from you on a continuing basis to find out what conclusion is that you come to. >> thank you very much, senator. we have been joined by senator gramm. >> i am honored to be on the committee. mr. chairman, it do you believe the nuclear power industry in the united states is well regulated and generally safe? >> we believe that it is well regulated. we do believe we have a strong program to ensure and protect

public health and safety. >> would you advise the congress to continue to pursue nuclear power? >> this season is about what to do with nuclear -- the decisions are beyond our responsibility. >> just as a citizen? would you like to see america have more nuclear power? >> >> i would like to see nuclear power that is safe and secure. >> do you believe that the nuclear power plants in the future are more modern and more safe? >> certainly, the plan that are under consideration have enhanced designs and enhanced safety features that seem to indicate they would have an inherent safety advantage over the existing plants. we believe the plans that are in existence and to meet our requirements for safety and

security and the new plant could potentially be have slump -- have some additional enhancement. >> like new cars tappings that old cars do not have. we still drive older cars. -- like new cars have things that old cars do not have. at the end of the day, the benefit of nuclear power is that it creates good jobs. is that your understanding? >> the focus of the agencies to make sure that the nuclear power is safe and secure. we continue to have a program, we think, that ensures -- >> if i called it clean energy, would you agree? >> i do not like to get into discussions about that. >> let's talk about spent fuel. what to do with spent fuel? i've always been a fan of the

french reprocessing system, but quite frankly, the secretary has convinced me that if we will be patient, maybe the next decade, there will be new technologies developed on the spent fuel reprocessing front that would be worth waiting hundred do agree with that? >> -- waiting on. do you agree with that? >> we want to make sure that spent fuel can be stored safely and securely and tell them. >> but me agree with my boss, secretary chu. >> both of you are very smart. >> be are very interested and exploring a number of options. >> the think that it is beneficial for the country and not to duplicate -- do you think

that is beneficial for the country not to duplicate the french system right now? >> we do have some issues related to possible proliferation from the cycle as well as environmental issues. we think that with research, we can do substantially better. that is the research that secretary chu is working with with my office. >> i came to the department after the decision had been made, and i heartily agreed with the secretariat that it is not a workable solution. i believe that to the equation needs both a technical and a local support. as a resident of nevada, i saw a lack of local support. i do think it is possible for

approaches that may provide interesting technical options and can beat waite -- can be done in ways of having a strong local support. >> thank you. that is the key to this. we will move on. can you tell us -- did it contribute to the disaster in japan? we have a program to create it in america that would take plutonium weapons and convert them into plowshares. do support that? >> i am well aware of the program. there are 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium better in excess here and in russia. these are nuclear weapons. there is a process where you can take the weapon and diluted

down and create a commercial fuel. you are taking a sword and turning it into a plowshare. that program is going on in south carolina. i want to thank the illustration of been supportive of the program. there are some things -- i want to thank the end of this duration of being supportive of the program. do believe that producing it in america makes sense? do you recommend that we continue to do so? >> lacrosse to safety, i need to pass it back. -- when we cross to safety, i need to pass it back. >> you were taking weapons-grade plutonium off the market and doing something constructive with that. >> we have done very ethereal analysis -- a very thorough analysis. we think that can be used safely.

>> thank you very much. gentlemen, thank you so much. we will proceed to the next panel. i would ask the witness is to come forward. >> coming up, a house hearing on the treasury department's troubled assets relief program. president obama and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell talk about energy policy. on tomorrows "washington journal," a look at congressional budget negotiations with ron paul. brown university sociologist " professor john logan on the u.s. census. >> if i could say what i wanted as mayor, and the only person that got in trouble was me. >> stephen goldsmith spent years

as mayor in indianapolis. today he has a boss and a different job description. >> i am here to make the streets a little bit cleaner and a little bit safer than the tax dollars to go a little bit farther. and to prove that a large cities have a vibrant future. i steer away from things that will attract -- detracts from that agenda. sunday night at 8:00 on c-span. >> this weekend, "the new york times op-ed columnist on how our unconscious mind shapes our character, intelligence. can watch on the long history of african-american serving in the white house residence. recalls and tweets -- your calls and tweets. and tweets.